How to Theorize Someone's Potential Mile?

Double your 800m time to get your 1500 estimate/potential.

2:00+2:00= 4:00

Speculator Sam wrote:

Would you say there's a way of calculating someone's potential mile with a given data set? I've heard that one method is to see someone's 100m time without specific training, and multiply that and the result is someone's potential mile given they did a decade's worth of aerobic and stamina training (i.e. say a hobbyjogger got a 15-17 secs. 100m. That means they could never hope to run faster than 4:01.4-4:33.59 for the Mile). This could turnout to be an interesting discussion. Thanks for reading.

How many years would you spend developing that 100 speed?

No training, just warm-up and give it a few attempts like that.

Speculator Sam wrote:

Would you say there's a way of calculating someone's potential mile with a given data set? I've heard that one method is to see someone's 100m time without specific training, and multiply that and the result is someone's potential mile given they did a decade's worth of aerobic and stamina training (i.e. say a hobbyjogger got a 15-17 secs. 100m. That means they could never hope to run faster than 4:01.4-4:33.59 for the Mile). This could turnout to be an interesting discussion. Thanks for reading.

Multiply the 100m by what? And did this guy run a 100m and then say "I think that was between 15-17 seconds?" Who would give a range like that?

How high are you right now?

This is a good formula too. I suppose a hobbymiler would work like hell on their 100-400m sprint times during track seasons to get to that 800m potential and thus 1500m-Mile potential. In that case, the potential 800m is said to be ((best 400m x 2) + 4).

I said 15-17 as a reference to when I was in high school running the 100m. I had a 15.62, but I've known my XC teamates to be as slow as 18.5. Divide the 100m time by 100, and multiply by 1609.344.

Is this a common estimate, projected 800 = (best 400 x 2) + 4?

First thing - I think most of these predictions are better as "limiters." That is, the runner would be hard pressed to run faster than the given time. They are not meant to say "you are capable of X got the mile if you train for it"

I like Frank Horwill's "4 second endurance" rule.

Mile time per 400m - 4 secs = 800 time per 400m

800 time per 400m - 4 secs = 400 time

So for a 4:00 1600:

60 per 400m 1600 - 4 secs = 1:52 800

56 per 400m 800 - 4 sec = 52 400

If someone can run 52.0, they would be right on the borderline, but would likely never break 4:00.

Four minute mile:

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank15.html

Four second rule:

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank29.html

Highschool doesn't mean anything. What if you worked on your 100 speed for 10 years and you were down to 11 sec flat at age 27. What does the calculator say that your mile time should be?

Then reference first ever 100m in high school.

McKenzie was 23, 48.8, 3:36.

McBride was 21.5, 45.8, 1:43.95

These are 200, 400, and 1500m on Ken, and 2, 4, and 800m on Bri? What should I make of these numbers?

fred wrote:

McKenzie was 23, 48.8, 3:36.

McBride was 21.5, 45.8, 1:43.95

11.x leg speed @ 100 = 3:54 mile

10.x leg speed @ 100 for sub 1:44 800

Please elaborate, I'm confused.